2019-03-12 Planning & Environment Committee Agenda

PLANNING & ENVIRONMENT COMMITTEE MEETING AGENDA                                   12 MARCH 2019


Applicant’s Representation
The applicant’s engineer seeks clarification of the 1%AEP event referred to in the condition and
questions the need for a back-up power supply system for the pump that is independent of the
main supply. The engineer suggests that the tank size condition becomes irrelevant as the back-
up system would kick in in the event of a power failure. Notwithstanding, the applicant contends
that based on their calculations, the depth of water accumulating in the basement for a 1%AEP in
excess of 24 hours would be only 53mm, there is no need for backup power supply either.
In conclusion the applicant’s engineer submits that condition 52a i) and ii) are unreasonable
conditions and request they be deleted.
Assessment of Representation
The condition has been included to address the stormwater runoff from the exposed areas of the
access driveway that slope down into the basement. The impacts of regional flooding in the area
are addressed by the proposed barrier at the top of the driveway.
In regard to condition 52a (i) the 1%AEP event that was considered for the condition was the
short term event not the longer regional flood event and it is recommended that the Condition
52a (i) be amended to provide clarity.
In regard to Condition 52a (ii) the applicant’s engineer submits that in a larger event the expected
depth of runoff across the basement carpark floor is 53mm. On this basis given inundation is not
significant a back-up power system is not warranted. However it is recommended that the
basement be constructed of materials that can withstand some inundation and all service
connections are located above the potential inundation level. The applicant has advised that they
would be agreeable to changing condition 52a (ii) to include such a requirement for construction
of the basement.


3.   COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM SUBMITTERS
Although there is no formal process for submitters to make comment on representations,
representations are able to be viewed on Councils website via on line planning. Comments have
been received from 2 submitters on the applicant’s representations which are summarised in the
table below.
 Matters Raised                                  Comments
 Are disappointed that Council allowed a         It is agreed that on site management while will
 reduced rear setback but are reasonably         assist in mitigating noise impacts for nearby
 satisfied with the conditions intended to       residents, conditions 3d and 36 are still
 minimise noise and invasion of privacy.         necessary to ensure noise levels for residents
 Windows on the upper level will have a          are minimised.
 direct line of sight into living areas of our
 home and adversely effect our enjoyment of
 life in our home. At least condition 3d may
 help lessen the impact. There is no
 guarantee that management arrangements
 will not change and the property fall under
 the control of management with different
 standards.
 Use of outdoor speakers around the pool         Agreed.
 and surrounding area at any time is certain
 to raise complaints and should not be
 allowed under any circumstances




                                                                                   Page 72 of 116